Well if I said it would take 81/2 minutes to strike the film, that was a mistake on my part.

Well, you did say exactly that in the only answers you have given me. And yet you insist that my questions have even answered and don't need answering again. Even though you here acknowledge your given answers to be mistaken. Is that reasonable?

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. How many more times am I going to have to repeat myself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You explained what? You were blabbing about replaced photons, and I just explained why this is not relevant.

So what is it you are asking? You want me to admit that photons have to travel 93 million miles to reach the sensor, and you're doing everything you can to accomplish this so I will have no recourse but to concede. Is that correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Done what again? I am not going off onto a tangent. The Sun is made up of matter, whether it's emitting or reflecting light. This is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You went off on an irrelevant tangent about light not having information in it. That has nothing to do with what I am asking you about. And who said or implied anything about the Sun not being made of matter??? Where did that come from?

I didn't say anyone implied that the Sun was not made of matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's right, and that's why if we're looking at the Sun directly, it would take a nanosecond for the mirror image (the light) to be at our eyes or film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you just agreed that it takes 8min, not nanoseconds.

Spacemonkey, there are two sides to this highway, one is light traveling to Earth at 186,000 miles a second; the other is the eyes looking outward at the object. You are ignoring my side of the highway. That's why this discussion is a failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or camera film. THOSE photons were there within a nanosecond because of the mirror image effect which only takes a nanosecond when you compare this closed system to light traveling from the Sun to Earth, which takes 81/2 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no 'mirror image effect' capable of relocating photons by 93 million miles in a nanosecond.

But that's not necessary. These photons are not required to travel on your side of the highway (even though they are the same stream of photons) for this account to work. My side creates a completely different scenario than the one you insist is the only one possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just made that up. And you didn't answer the question: [I]We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film

I didn't just make that up, and again it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or a camera because both the eyes and a camera are on Earth and they both have lenses that allow this mechanism to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

... and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

I'm not agreeing to something I don't agree to, just because you want me to. Mathematically speaking, it wouldn't take but a nanosecond for light from the Sun to be at the sensor when we're looking at the Sun directly. You are assuming the light that is being received 81/2 minutes later is the only possible way for light to be at the sensor, which isn't right. That's why I said we could see the object within nanoseconds while the light from the Sun is still traveling to Earth whereupon we would be able to see each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether it's the naked eye or a camera. Why are you making an issue over this? We talking about light that is emitted from the Sun Spacemonkey, but the light that travels to Earth does not contain information that would allow us to see the Sun in the light itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, information is not relevant to what I am asking, and you have again evaded the question you were replying to: Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?

We're discussing the same emitted light, so in that sense it is the same light but we're getting an image on the sensor in a nanosecond all the while the light is traveling to Earth. Two sides to the highway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then explain it Spacemonkey since you have dubbed yourself the authority on this issue. How can we get an image of anything with full spectrum light?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The parts of the film exposed to arriving full spectrum light from the Sun react and turn white. The parts that are not exposed to this full spectrum light do not turn white. The result is an image of a white circle - an image of the Sun.

That makes sense, but it still doesn't answer the question as to when this exposed film is interacting with this full spectrum light. That's why he said we would see the Sun first (in a nanosecond), and 81/2 minutes thereafter the light would arrive on Earth where it would be daylight and we would see each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.

Quote:

Not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which part of it was not true? Can light from the Sun be at the film on Earth without any change of location? Is the Sun not 93 million miles away? Can this light change location by this distance in any way other than by traveling?

Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can it travel at any speed other than the speed of light? Can it travel 93 million miles at light speed in less than 8min?

Of course not. None of this is being debated Spacemonkey. This is 100% correct if the photons are traveling on your side of the highway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

All those things count, especially when his claim has to do with the eyes and brain. You're trying to throw me off but it isn't working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of those things have anything to do with what I am asking you about.

I know what you want. You just want to establish that light can only interact with film if it reaches the film on Earth because that's where the film is. I still dispute that this is the only plausible model for the reasons I have given over and over again.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.

How does the inverse square law relate at all to instantaneous photons appearing on the surface of camera film when the Sun is newly ignited?

This goes back to the original claim LadyShea. If efferent vision turns out to be true (and I know this has to be proven), then we would get an image of the Sun on the sensor within a nanosecond of it being turned on, just like we would get an image of any object on the sensor in a nanosecond, if it meets the requirements of brightness and size, because this substance (which is part of the external world) is what light is revealing.

None of that explains how light could possibly relocate from the Sun to camera film on Earth instantly, and certainly the inverse square law has nothing to do with anything you just said.

You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.

You're absolutely wrong...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Am I? I don't think so...

Light needed at the retina according to Lessans' account? You made that up.

NO I DIDN'T. LESSANS SAID NOTHING "OTHER THAN LIGHT" MEANING LIGHT IS AT THE EYE

Lenses that can affect distant light not yet at the lens? You made that up.

NOT TRUE. LIGHT IS AT THE LENS IF THIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHT

Mirror images arriving at a film or retina before light gets there? You made that up.

AGAIN, LIGHT IS AT THE FILM BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS THERE SO THIS IS A FALSE CONCLUSION

Non-absorbed light not being reflected? You made that up.

IMAGES (OR NONABSORBED LIGHT) ARE NOT REFLECTED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BEING DECODED FROM THE LIGHT ITSELF. IF THIS ACCOUNT IS TRUE THIS STATEMENT IS ALSO TRUE.

'Closed systems' somehow negating actual distances? You made that up.
IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE THAT COUNTS; IT'S THE ENTIRE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT SIGHT THAT CAUSES REAL TIME SEEING

Traveling partial spectra turning into full spectrum light? You made that up.

ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT ARRIVES ON EARTH, NOT A PARTIAL SPECTRUM, AND THAT WE WOULD SEE THE MOON (IF THE SUNLIGHT WAS FIRST STRIKING IT) DUE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW WHICH WOULD PUT US IN OPTICAL RANGE IN LESS THAN 1 1/3 SECONDS WHEN WE GAZE IN THAT DIRECTION.

No information in the arriving light? You made that up.

WHAT INFORMATION IS IN THE LIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DECODE AN IMAGE IN THE BRAIN IF IT'S FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT?

The inverse square law preventing traveling light from being resolved? You made that up.

THERE IS NO INVERSE SQUARE LAW FROM THAT DISTANCE. THAT'S WHY I SAID BY THE TIME THE LIGHT GETS HERE IT IS FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT. WE DON'T RESOLVE AN IMAGE FROM FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT.

The fiction that your account is plausible and contradiction-free? You made that up too.

IT CERTAINLY IS PLAUSIBLE AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR OTHERWISE.

Lol, raving capslock madness. Everything on the above list is something you have COMPLETELY MADE UP in your desperate and completely unsuccessful attempts to make efferent vision look plausible.

The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.

How does the inverse square law relate at all to instantaneous photons appearing on the surface of camera film when the Sun is newly ignited?

This goes back to the original claim LadyShea. If efferent vision turns out to be true (and I know this has to be proven), then we would get an image of the Sun on the sensor within a nanosecond of it being turned on, just like we would get an image of any object on the sensor in a nanosecond, if it meets the requirements of brightness and size, because this substance (which is part of the external world) is what light is revealing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of that explains how light could possibly relocate from the Sun to camera film on Earth instantly, and certainly the inverse square law has nothing to do with anything you just said.

You're right. The Sun emits light; it doesn't strike an object which causes the inverse square law to occur. But it still works in the same way. The only difference is that full spectrum light is at the film instead of nonabsorbed photons.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.

You're absolutely wrong...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Am I? I don't think so...

Light needed at the retina according to Lessans' account? You made that up.

NO I DIDN'T. LESSANS SAID NOTHING "OTHER THAN LIGHT" MEANING LIGHT IS AT THE EYE

Lenses that can affect distant light not yet at the lens? You made that up.

NOT TRUE. LIGHT IS AT THE LENS IF THIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHT

Mirror images arriving at a film or retina before light gets there? You made that up.

AGAIN, LIGHT IS AT THE FILM BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS THERE SO THIS IS A FALSE CONCLUSION

Non-absorbed light not being reflected? You made that up.

IMAGES (OR NONABSORBED LIGHT) ARE NOT REFLECTED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BEING DECODED FROM THE LIGHT ITSELF. IF THIS ACCOUNT IS TRUE THIS STATEMENT IS ALSO TRUE.

'Closed systems' somehow negating actual distances? You made that up.
IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE THAT COUNTS; IT'S THE ENTIRE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT SIGHT THAT CAUSES REAL TIME SEEING

Traveling partial spectra turning into full spectrum light? You made that up.

ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT ARRIVES ON EARTH, NOT A PARTIAL SPECTRUM, AND THAT WE WOULD SEE THE MOON (IF THE SUNLIGHT WAS FIRST STRIKING IT) DUE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW WHICH WOULD PUT US IN OPTICAL RANGE IN LESS THAN 1 1/3 SECONDS WHEN WE GAZE IN THAT DIRECTION.

No information in the arriving light? You made that up.

WHAT INFORMATION IS IN THE LIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DECODE AN IMAGE IN THE BRAIN IF IT'S FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT?

The inverse square law preventing traveling light from being resolved? You made that up.

THERE IS NO INVERSE SQUARE LAW FROM THAT DISTANCE. THAT'S WHY I SAID BY THE TIME THE LIGHT GETS HERE IT IS FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT. WE DON'T RESOLVE AN IMAGE FROM FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT.

The fiction that your account is plausible and contradiction-free? You made that up too.

IT CERTAINLY IS PLAUSIBLE AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR OTHERWISE.

Lol, raving capslock madness. Everything on the above list is something you have COMPLETELY MADE UP in your desperate and completely unsuccessful attempts to make efferent vision look plausible.

That's because it IS plausible, but you have already blocked your mind from even attempting to understand this account, just like you blocked your mind from understanding why free will and determinism are opposites no matter how hard you try to make these two positions compatible. You seem to believe that your way of thinking is the only "right" way. I want to get off this subject. It's not getting us anywhere. I will not concede and you won't concede so we're at a standstill. Let's take a break.

I used caps to distinguish your sentences from mine, but it still didn't show up who was speaking so I bolded the sentences. It wasn't raving capslock madness.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

The Sun emits light; it doesn't strike an object which causes the inverse square law to occur.

Seriously, what are you talking about? You're babbling completely incoherently. The inverse square law is a property of geometry, and light 'striking an object' has nothing to do with it.

__________________The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

Well, you did say exactly that in the only answers you have given me. And yet you insist that my questions have even answered and don't need answering again. Even though you here acknowledge your given answers to be mistaken. Is that reasonable?

Yup.

How is it reasonable to insist that I should be satisfied with answers you have admitted to be mistaken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what is it you are asking? You want me to admit that photons have to travel 93 million miles to reach the sensor, and you're doing everything you can to accomplish this so I will have no recourse but to concede. Is that correct?

No, I'm simply asking you to honestly answer my questions. And you are refusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say anyone implied that the Sun was not made of matter.

So why the hell did you bring it up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, there are two sides to this highway, one is light traveling to Earth at 186,000 miles a second; the other is the eyes looking outward at the object. You are ignoring my side of the highway. That's why this discussion is a failure.

No, it's a failure because you keep refusing to answer my questions about your side of the highway, which is still a contradictory highway that doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no 'mirror image effect' capable of relocating photons by 93 million miles in a nanosecond.

But that's not necessary. These photons are not required to travel on your side of the highway (even though they are the same stream of photons) for this account to work. My side creates a completely different scenario than the one you insist is the only one possible.

Who mentioned travel? I said that you need a 93 million mile RELOCATION of photons, and that 'mirror images' can't achieve this in a nanosecond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't just make that up...

Yeah, you did. Mirror images getting to places before light can travel there is something you have completely made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

... and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

I'm not agreeing to something I don't agree to, just because you want me to. Mathematically speaking, it wouldn't take but a nanosecond for light from the Sun to be at the sensor when we're looking at the Sun directly. You are assuming the light that is being received 81/2 minutes later is the only possible way for light to be at the sensor, which isn't right. That's why I said we could see the object within nanoseconds while the light from the Sun is still traveling to Earth whereupon we would be able to see each other.

You STILL haven't answered the damn question!

We're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're discussing the same emitted light, so in that sense it is the same light but we're getting an image on the sensor in a nanosecond all the while the light is traveling to Earth. Two sides to the highway.

So you're not talking about the same light at all. Whenever I ask you about the light at the camera film, you start talking about different traveling light that is still on its way there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The parts of the film exposed to arriving full spectrum light from the Sun react and turn white. The parts that are not exposed to this full spectrum light do not turn white. The result is an image of a white circle - an image of the Sun.

That makes sense...

Good. Then you can stop talking garbage about full spectrum light not being resolvable into an image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but it still doesn't answer the question as to when this exposed film is interacting with this full spectrum light.

It interacts with the film when it gets to the film, obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which part of it was not true? Can light from the Sun be at the film on Earth without any change of location? Is the Sun not 93 million miles away? Can this light change location by this distance in any way other than by traveling?

Of course not.

So which part of what I said was not true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can it travel at any speed other than the speed of light? Can it travel 93 million miles at light speed in less than 8min?

Of course not. None of this is being debated Spacemonkey. This is 100% correct if the photons are traveling on your side of the highway.

You said that what I said was "Not true". How could this be if you are not debating any part of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what you want. You just want to establish that light can only interact with film if it reaches the film on Earth because that's where the film is. I still dispute that this is the only plausible model for the reasons I have given over and over again.

I just want you to be honest and reasonable. But instead you are weaseling and refusing to answer my questions.

So what is it you are asking? You want me to admit that photons have to travel 93 million miles to reach the sensor, and you're doing everything you can to accomplish this so I will have no recourse but to concede. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct, because in point of fact photons from the sun must travel 93 million miles to the earth to reach the eye, which means we are seeing the sun some eight minutes as it was in the past because it takes the photons some eight minutes to travel that particular distance. And no, we do not see the sun itself, we see the light from the sun -- just as we see our reflections in a mirror and not some objects in the mirror that are our duplicates! Your stupid "idea" would require that we see our real doppelgangers made of actual matter standing in mirrors!

You are talking nothing but absurd, idiotic rubbish. Every time you try to answer Spacemonkey's questions you make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. Your blabber about matter and the inverse square law and mirror images at the eye and closed boxes and on and on is stupid nonsensical trash.

it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or a camera because both the eyes and a camera are on Earth and they both have lenses that allow this mechanism to work.

What exactly do lenses do, or what property do they posses that allows this?
Seriously, you are ascribing superpowers to this

If I put 2 pieces of photosensitive paper on the ground next to each other, then put a pair of eyeglasses on one piece, then turn on the Sun, would the paper with the lenses sitting on it interact with the light immediately while the paper without lenses must wait 8.5 minutes?

...in both Christianity and Judaism people are making great efforts to try and back up their faith with evidence. People have searched for remnants of Noah's Ark, for example, looked for artifacts to support the parting of the Red Sea, etc. It's called Biblical Archaeology.

I, for one, am not looking for Noah's Ark and someone finding it or not finding it would not materially impact my faith.

__________________Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.

That's why he said we would see the Sun first (in a nanosecond), and 81/2 minutes thereafter the light would arrive on Earth where it would be daylight and we would see each other.

Lessans said nothing about nanoseconds. He said we would see the Sun the instant it was turned on. You are just making up the stuff about nanoseconds and in doing that you are contradicting Lessans' claim.

__________________Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.

That's why he said we would see the Sun first (in a nanosecond), and 81/2 minutes thereafter the light would arrive on Earth where it would be daylight and we would see each other.

Lessans said nothing about nanoseconds. He said we would see the Sun the instant it was turned on. You are just making up the stuff about nanoseconds and in doing that you are contradicting Lessans' claim.

As Agnakuk notes, Lessans did NOT say we would see the sun "in a nanosecond." He said we would see it INSTANTLY. "Instantly" and "in a nanosecond" are DIFFERENT. Surely even you must notice this? If we saw the sun in a nanosecond, then we would see it as it was a nanosecond in the past -- NOT real-time seeing! The nanosecond shit is the latest hand-waving nonsense you pulled out of your ass to support Lessans, without even noticing that it contradicts him.

You are spewing an ever-widening pool of emetic nonsense, no longer even attached to Lessans' claims. He never said the light would be at the retina instantly, and at the earth eight and a half minutes later -- YOU said that. He said we would see the sun instantly when it was turned on, but that we would not see our neighbors on earth until some eight minutes later, when the photons reached the earth. IOW, he did NOT say or believe that the photons (or molecules of light as he called them, lol) had to to be at the eye, but only at the sun, in order to be seen.

This is stupidly wrong, but your different claim is even wronger. You are saying the photons would be at the eyes instantly but not at the rest of the body until some eight minutes after God turned on the sun. Spooky! Because if that were the case, we would see our neighbors' glowing eyes when the sun was turned on at noon, but the rest of their bodies would be swaddled in dark! There would be nothing to see for some eight minutes except a floating sea of glowing eyes in otherwise velveteen blackness! Paging Stephen King for a good horror story!

That's why he said we would see the Sun first (in a nanosecond), and 81/2 minutes thereafter the light would arrive on Earth where it would be daylight and we would see each other.

Lessans said nothing about nanoseconds. He said we would see the Sun the instant it was turned on. You are just making up the stuff about nanoseconds and in doing that you are contradicting Lessans' claim.

That's why I am clarifying this. When he said "instant" he didn't mean there was no connection between light and the viewer. But this has no bearing on whether we are seeing in real or delayed time because, as I said, the time it takes for light to get to the photoreceptor or sensor is not affected by distance. The object could be 100 million miles away but if it met the requirements of efferent vision, we would see it virtually instantly since we would still not be waiting for that light to arrive. Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time. I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

All I'm trying to say is that we would not be able to get an image from a light source that is so far away because there would be no resolution.

That depends entirely on the sensitivity of the detector, the size of the object, and the amount of light it's emitting. So you're wrong in your basic understanding of optics again.

Please, stick to an account where you are free to make things up as you go along.

__________________The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner